Scana Energy Marketing, a subsidiary of Scana Corp., has filed alawsuit in Cobb County Superior Court in Georgia in an attempt tohave the marketing alliance contract which it signed in 1998 withsix co-ops nullified.

The 10-year contract Scana engaged in with subsidiaries of CobbElectric Membership Corp., Snapping Shoals EMC, and four otherco-ops, stipulated that Scana would sell natural gas to over200,000 of the co-ops electricity customers while Cobb and SnappingShoals would operate the billing service and call center.

“Under current Georgia law, energy marketing corporations, asthe co-ops are known, are not allowed to provide any other servicesfor profit basis, or a not for profit basis other thanelectricity,” said Scana spokesman Roger Schrum. “Obviously, theyare providing us with billing services that we pay for, which ofcourse would be in conflict with that statutory requirement.” Ofthe six co-ops, Cobb Energy Management Corp. and Snapping Shoalsprovide the natural gas billing services for Scana.

Schrum pointed to similar cases in which an EMC attempted tosell propane services. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that FlintEnergy, a unit of Flint EMC could not sell anything other thanelectric services. Schrum said the stance has been reaffirmedrecently as Walton EMC was turned down by the Georgia PublicService Commission when it attempted to become a certified naturalgas marketer.

Both cases occurred after Scana had already signed the contracthe added.

Scana Energy Marketing is also seeking to recover $8.9 milliondollars from the co-ops related to damages and out of pocketexpenses. “They have not met the performance aspects of ourcontract to provide billing and call center services,” he said. Thecompany is seeking $5.1 million for the damages for billing andcustomer service problems, and $3.8 million to help retrieve thecosts of having to develop their own billing system and call centerservice to provide the additional services that the co-ops did notmeet.

A hearing was held for the case early last week in which thepresiding judge said she would decide before the end of the monthwhether the case should be decided through arbitration orlitigation. “It is our intent to proceed with litigation,” saidSchrum.

Alex Steis

©Copyright 2000 Intelligence Press, Inc. All rightsreserved. The preceding news report may not be republished orredistributed in whole or in part without prior written consent ofIntelligence Press, Inc.